The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-09-17

why naturalize this old Hebrew wordi
Because we have no English term pre-.
cisely answering to it, the translators
would answer. But have we not the
word hell ? Certainly, but that is not a
fitting rendering of the term sheol
Very well; then the Old Testament has
nothing to say about man being doom
ed to hell. Neither saint nor sinner is
bound thither.
Let us then pass to the New Testa-
ment. The word hades occurs eleven
times in that book, but in the Revised
Version it is not translated at all. Why
not? Because we have no word in our
tongue precisely answering to it. But
we repeat the previous question; have
we not the word hell? Yes, but that
means something different from hades,
and therefore the Revised Version, even
in the parable of the rich man and Laz-
arus, speaks of the former as being in
hades, when he lifts his eyes in his tor
ment. Another word rendered hell in
our version is Tartarus. In fact, it is
but verb derived from that word,
which is employed, and that but once
in the Scriptures. But what was Tar
tarus 1t was the prison of hades;
but the clear testimony Of the Scrip
lures is that hades is to be destroyed.
OF course then its prison goes with
it. Perhaps the editor of the Indepen-
dent will say, 1--WE concede the truth of
your criticisms, but there remains one
word in the original which designates
the He'll against which J. C.'s father
and mother warned him; and that word
is Gehenna."
Let us then consider the import of
this term. We are content to quote the
Independent for authority as to the
original meaning of the word. In its
issue of August II, under the head OF
"The Sunday School," it uses the
phrase "IIell of fire." and comments
thus: The Greek for He'll is Gehenna,
meaning, primarily, Valley of Iinnom,
where refuse was thrown and burned
There is then no dispute between the
Independent and ourselves as to the pri
mary import of Gehenna. 1t was the
valley of IIinnom, to the south of Jeru-
salem, where offal was thrown and
burnt. Our dispute, if dispute we have,
must be about the secondary import of
the word. And what is this ? AS a
Universalist we answer, any severe
punishment or calamity, resulting in
sccffie physical destructfon OF a criminal
or wrong-doer. But perhaps the Inde-
pendent will answer, the secondary sense
of the term is place or state of endless
woe. Now we desire to show perfect
eandor; we shall therefore concede that
the word came in the process of time to
bear this meaning, but we aver that
there is no evidence that it attained it
before the second or third century of
the Christian era. 1t is not found in
the Apocrypha, nor in any early Jewish
Targum. We must, therefore, ascer-
tain its import by its usage in the New
Testament.
Now there is one passage that sheds
light on this matter. Just before our
Lords arrest he utters a vehement re-
buke of the Scribes and Pharisees for
their grave hypocrisies. Nearing the
climax of his reproof, he says: = Ser
pents, brood of vipers, how can ye es-
cape the damnation of Gehenna =?
Wherefore, behold, send to you proph-
cts, and wise men, and scribes; and
some of them shall ye kill and cruelty;
and some of them shall ye scourge in
your synagOgues, and persecute from
city to city; that upon you may come
all the righteous blood shed upon the
earth from the blood of righteous Abel
to the blood of Zacharias, whom ye
slew between the temple and the altar.
Verify, say to you, all these things
shall come upon this generetion." Matt.
xiii. 33 36.) The damnation of Ge-
henna was to overtake that very gene
ration. The pathetic words with which
the verse following the quotation just
given begins, 40 Jerusalem, Jerusa-
lem," shows that our Saviour has in
mind the terrible calamities which
would make the holy city as loathsome
and awful place as the valley of Hin
nom when Josiah desecrated it.
The Universalists can therefore claim,
on the strength OF early usage, that
Gehenna in its secondary import meant
grave calamities to be experienced in
the present life. So our Lord manifest
ly uses it. If the Independent main
tains that it signiied in the days of
Christ or his Apostles, place of end
less woe, the burden of proof rests on it.
What it came to signify in the second
or third century is aside from our pres
ent business. Now the editor of the
Independent likes the doctrine that if
one does not repent in the present life,
he will go to Hell. He holds that it is
"good, sound, healthful teaching. -
We object to it that the word He'll is
ambiguous. If the Independent employs
it in the sense current for the last cen
tury and half, then we object to his
theory as unscriptural. 1t is harsh,